On Thursday 10 December 2015 12:43:29 Martin Graesslin wrote: > On Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:24:06 PM CET Kevin Ottens wrote: > > > As I just said: I consider this as a useless exercise and a waste of my > > > time (and of anybody else who would do that). > > > > Note that it's a waste of time which could have been easily avoided. If > > the goal was to get something like KWayland in, the white listed > > constructs were known and documented. > > KWayland originated from KWin which already used full C++11 support at that > time. The aim was to use it in other parts of workspace at that time. Moving > into frameworks was not a direct aim at that time. It's something which > showed up as possibly useful only later on.
Right, hence my "if" earlier. I guess we'll see more cases like that in the future. We're in a similar situation in Zanshin, I proactively reduce the amount of C++11 I use there for anything which looks reusable in KF5. > > Bumping gcc requirements also has an impact on embedded platforms which > > tend to have older gcc. It's clearly one of the main nest of users for > > KWayland IMHO. I'm not sure what older gcc they tend to run with on the > > platforms supporting wayland but that's still something to consider > > (especially since wayland itself is not very demanding on the compiler as > > you pointed out). > > In my opinion it's not realistic to restrict the gcc compiler requirement > anyway. We don't have CI coverage for it, so we never know whether it > actually would compile. My linux distribution doesn't provide gcc < 4.8 > anymore, I wouldn't know how to ensure that the code actually works. This > makes it in my opinion unrealistic that I try to restrict the compiler > requirement again. By the same argument we would not even try to support VS2012. We have the same issue there. I agree with the fact that the CI support is not up to the task for now, I'm not sure that's a reason to ignore the issue preventing the CI to ever catch up. > Anyway, I don't see that I have time to rewind the C++11 usage. As we cannot > increase the compiler requirement we probably have to keep KWayland in kde/ > workspace and retry once frameworks increases the requirements. Fine with > me. It makes our lifes a little bit harder, especially for > plasma-frameworks, but we will be able to manage that. Fair enough. I wish the compilers would propagate faster though. :-) Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel